NationStates Jolt Archive

I watched all three episodes of Tin Man, Sci Fi Channel's misbegotten homage to the Wizard of Oz.

They said it was based on Frank Baum's classic The Wizard of Oz. What they meant was that it bears no resemblance in any way, shape or form with the story or the characters or much of anything else.

That said, it still might have been a good yarn except for a couple of things. It was poorly written (though not as bad as their recent Highlander fiasco) and badly acted.

I think they changed writers for the last episode, that's the only thing that could explain it. Either that or the writers were getting desperate to finish it up and get on to other things.

Any one else see this travesty? Or did you have the good sense to turn the tube off and read a book? I should have.

I watched all three episodes of Tin Man, Sci Fi Channel's misbegotten homage to the Wizard of Oz.

They said it was based on Frank Baum's classic The Wizard of Oz. What they meant was that it bears no resemblance in any way, shape or form with the story or the characters or much of anything else.

That said, it still might have been a good yarn except for a couple of things. It was poorly written (though not as bad as their recent Highlander fiasco) and badly acted.

I think they changed writers for the last episode, that's the only thing that could explain it. Either that or the writers were getting desperate to finish it up and get on to other things.

Any one else see this travesty? Or did you have the good sense to turn the tube off and read a book? I should have.

I saw the trailers for it, decided I'd be better off not watching it, and did various other things instead, like reading, watching Family Guy, writing poetry, and browsing the internet.

Perhaps that was the right choice.

What can you expect out of a company who passed on "Crusade" to air "Sliders"? Other than "Dog Soldiers", everything Made for SciFi is garbage

it sounded to be a poor version of Wicked, and so skipped it. Wicked, incidentally, is quite a good read, and a surprisingly good musical.

It actually wasn't completely hideous. The actress playing DG really sucked, but the story was entertaining enough.

And frankly, I was thankful to see a complete absence of such hits as "We're off to see the wizard, the wonderful wizard of oz!".

As a movie that was "re-imagined" from the original books, it really did come quite a bit closer to the original than most of them...I still remember the hideous attempt to put the Earth-Sea books to film. I managed all of 15 minutes of that travesty.

I don't know...I thought it was decent. D.G. was DEFINITELY poorly acted, but she wasn't as bad as one might think...she had the occasional time where she showed talent.

And I did like seeing Hawk(the guy who played the reimagined Tin Man, Cain...I call him Hawk because that's the character he played in Star Trek: First Contact and I can never remember his actual name) again. He did a great job with the script.

Writing was somewhat bad, true...CGI was probably overused...

But I thought that it was intriguing with the way it worked. Different, yes, but that's what a reimagining is, and this was an interesting one.

However, it left a crapload of questions and danced around a bit on a few things, and it wasn't as good as it could have been. I could have also done without the stupid reference jokes. :rolleyes:

As a movie that was "re-imagined" from the original books, it really did come quite a bit closer to the original than most of them...I still remember the hideous attempt to put the Earth-Sea books to film. I managed all of 15 minutes of that travesty.

Earth-Sea movie/TV show??

Any more info?

I enjoyed it right up until the last episode. By the end of the 2nd episode I was thinking "Shit, they're going to end it like [how they ultimately end up ending it]." And sure enough, the ending was far too sappy.

I did like that they tied it into the original Wizard of Oz, though that runs into a few consistency issues that I've been thinking over since then.

And D.G.'s acting and dialogue was terrible, but I thought Neal McDonough and Alan Cumming's characters were both hilariously well-played.

Earth-Sea movie/TV show??

Any more info?

Save yourself. It sucked horribly. So much so that the author of the Earthsea series openly denounced it.

:mad: 1. This forum requires that you wait 30 seconds between posts. Please try again in 3 seconds.

It actually wasn't completely hideous. The actress playing DG really sucked, but the story was entertaining enough.

And frankly, I was thankful to see a complete absence of such hits as "We're off to see the wizard, the wonderful wizard of oz!".

As a movie that was "re-imagined" from the original books, it really did come quite a bit closer to the original than most of them...I still remember the hideous attempt to put the Earth-Sea books to film. I managed all of 15 minutes of that travesty.

Oh they played that quite nicely. Right in the first episode Azkadellia says "The little bitch is off to see the wizard." IMHO put a nice tone on the rest of the miniseries, right up until the ending.

I watched all three episodes of Tin Man, Sci Fi Channel's misbegotten homage to the Wizard of Oz.

They said it was based on Frank Baum's classic The Wizard of Oz. What they meant was that it bears no resemblance in any way, shape or form with the story or the characters or much of anything else.

That said, it still might have been a good yarn except for a couple of things. It was poorly written (though not as bad as their recent Highlander fiasco) and badly acted.

I think they changed writers for the last episode, that's the only thing that could explain it. Either that or the writers were getting desperate to finish it up and get on to other things.

Any one else see this travesty? Or did you have the good sense to turn the tube off and read a book? I should have.

I kept hoping that it wouldn't suck so hard, and I watched all three, but it was awful.

I was torn between rating the CG, the acting and the writing as the worst element of it. I really was.

Either that or the bad guys were just too damn ridiculous.



Beyond that, there's already a grown-up version of Oz, it's called Wicked and it's wicked good.

I kept hoping that it wouldn't suck so hard, and I watched all three, but it was awful.

I was torn between rating the CG, the acting and the writing as the worst element of it. I really was.

Either that or the bad guys were just too damn ridiculous.



Beyond that, there's already a grown-up version of Oz, it's called Wicked and it's wicked good.

I wanted to see it. But what with the writer's strike....

Plus I don't think Idina Menzel is playing Ephelba anymore, and that makes me want to see it less, since I heard she's amazing in the role.

i thought it was modestly successful. i liked the tin man and glitch (scarecrow) characters and actors.

the son and i passed the boring spots by inventing the details of the RPG we would make from the story. it helped.

but what i really want to know is...


WHAT IS IT WITH THE SCIFI CHANNEL AND BEARS?

is there something extra special sciency about a roaring bear? is it horrifying? is it redefining the laws of nature? because ive seen several scifi channel movies that feature the same damned grizzly bear roaring shot. it was completely unnecessary in THIS story and perhaps should have been replaced with some cgi character, eh? someone at that channel has a problem.

I watched all three episodes of Tin Man, Sci Fi Channel's misbegotten homage to the Wizard of Oz.

They said it was based on Frank Baum's classic The Wizard of Oz. What they meant was that it bears no resemblance in any way, shape or form with the story or the characters or much of anything else.

That said, it still might have been a good yarn except for a couple of things. It was poorly written (though not as bad as their recent Highlander fiasco) and badly acted.

I think they changed writers for the last episode, that's the only thing that could explain it. Either that or the writers were getting desperate to finish it up and get on to other things.

Any one else see this travesty? Or did you have the good sense to turn the tube off and read a book? I should have.

I didn't see the third part yet, but I thought the rest was okay.

Alan Cumming was sex-on-legs.

I liked it for what it tried to do - resurrect the Oz tradition - and for what it could mean for the future... like, maybe the film version of American McGee's "Alice" might actually get made.

If you actually watched the last episode, you can tell it is set decades after all of the Oz stories end. It still takes some artistic licenses with it then even.

And this is desecrating a childhood classic? Obviously you havn't been following the development of silver screen movies for a few years. Or the other billion adaptations of the Wizard of Oz.


And it's a god damned reimagining. I don't see threads denouncing American McGee, you people need to get over yourselves. Like any of you have ever read an Oz book. You just remembered the MGM/Disney raped crap and started bitching that they ruined your childhood.

Sorry, but Dorothy Gale was played by Zooey Deschanel...I dont' care if she can't act, she is oh so lovely to see.

I never liked the Disney version as a child, but my family and I decided to sit down and watch the Sci-fi version. The acting was pretty bad and I didn't really like the animation (buuuut, it is Sci fi).

However, I enjoyed the overall setting, like the way they redid the characters and stuff. A nice idea, although I wouldn't rewatch it.

Sorry, but Dorothy Gale was played by Zooey Deschanel...I dont' care if she can't act, she is oh so lovely to see.

No she isn't. She's ugly. Her hair was obviously dyed and her inability to act made her horrible looking.

Same with Azkadelia(though she was just plain disgusting as it was trying to act "sexy.")

No, if you want to talk someone attractive from this, how about their mother, eh? Beautiful woman, lovely voice...and of course the ACCENT! *swoons*

Well, it wasn't AS craptastic as SciFi's "Snakehead Terror" movies...

I enjoyed the "reimagining." I thought it was a decent fantasy construct, which I'd like to see reimagined someday by real writers.

All of the female characters got on my nerves, and most of the other characters were cyphers. Those fucking monkey-bats I just wanted to poison. Could they have been more lame? Geez, I think the Hollywood originals were better. And that non-entity of an evil witch? That was just insulting to the memory of Margaret Hamilton.

Neal McDonough as the Tin Man had potential, but never got it together. I kind of wondered if some of his scenes were edited out. I felt like there was so much more to that character, trying to get into the story.

Alan Cumming, of course, was a joy to stare at and listen to. He's really the only reason I tuned in to it. I wanted more for him to do, too. Hey, GnI, since you're such a fan of his, are you familiar with his men's fragrance line? All the scents are named for jokes on his name. ;)

Alan Cumming, of course, was a joy to stare at and listen to. He's really the only reason I tuned in to it. I wanted more for him to do, too. Hey, GnI, since you're such a fan of his, are you familiar with his men's fragrance line? All the scents are named for jokes on his name. ;)

You mean, this: http://www.cummingthefragrance.com/

:)

Alan Cumming was sorely underused in what I have seen of Tinman so far... but that's mainly because Alan Cumming can never be used enough. :)

But - I like the way his character was designed, and I like what he did with it. Not having seen the rest yet, I'm not certain, but thus far I think Tinman is worth it, purely for Glitch. :)

I have to agree with a lot of the posters here, Glitch was the only character really worth watching. Even though the writing and editing had deteriorated pretty badly in the last episode, he managed to overcome it.

Didn't it seem that the last episode was just thrown together, as though the writers had lost interest and just wanted to get it over - possibly in preparation for the strike?

You mean, this: http://www.cummingthefragrance.com/

:)
That's it. :) Jon Stewart says it smells really nice.

Alan Cumming was sorely underused in what I have seen of Tinman so far... but that's mainly because Alan Cumming can never be used enough. :)

But - I like the way his character was designed, and I like what he did with it. Not having seen the rest yet, I'm not certain, but thus far I think Tinman is worth it, purely for Glitch. :)
You'll be disappointed, but for the same reason you'll be disappointed in general. There really is no resolution to the story. They just do the big conflict thing and...roll credits.

I have to agree with a lot of the posters here, Glitch was the only character really worth watching. Even though the writing and editing had deteriorated pretty badly in the last episode, he managed to overcome it.

Didn't it seem that the last episode was just thrown together, as though the writers had lost interest and just wanted to get it over - possibly in preparation for the strike?
Maybe, or maybe the writers just had a bus to catch. :)

That's it. :) Jon Stewart says it smells really nice.


You'll be disappointed, but for the same reason you'll be disappointed in general. There really is no resolution to the story. They just do the big conflict thing and...roll credits.

The ending was brutally, viciously anticlimactic.

I never liked the Disney version as a child, but my family and I decided to sit down and watch the Sci-fi version. The acting was pretty bad and I didn't really like the animation (buuuut, it is Sci fi).

However, I enjoyed the overall setting, like the way they redid the characters and stuff. A nice idea, although I wouldn't rewatch it.

So the lion roaring at the beginning makes it Disney, does it? Jeez, people, I know it's fashionable to disrespect the mouse, but lay off when it's not his product. You can blame Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer for the 30s Wizard (aka MGM).

No she isn't. She's ugly. Her hair was obviously dyed and her inability to act made her horrible looking.

Same with Azkadelia(though she was just plain disgusting as it was trying to act "sexy.")

No, if you want to talk someone attractive from this, how about their mother, eh? Beautiful woman, lovely voice...and of course the ACCENT! *swoons*

Fair enough. I still see her as Trillian in H2G2 and other films. She's hot.

That's it. :) Jon Stewart says it smells really nice.


I suppose that probably matters... but... Alan Cumming! It has win all over it already. :)


You'll be disappointed, but for the same reason you'll be disappointed in general. There really is no resolution to the story. They just do the big conflict thing and...roll credits.

That's pretty much what I expected... ah well. It's a step in the right direction, maybe.

You mean, this: http://www.cummingthefragrance.com/

:)

Alan Cumming was sorely underused in what I have seen of Tinman so far... but that's mainly because Alan Cumming can never be used enough. :)

But - I like the way his character was designed, and I like what he did with it. Not having seen the rest yet, I'm not certain, but thus far I think Tinman is worth it, purely for Glitch. :)

why isnt alan cumming a huge star? i checked out his filmography and there wasnt anything in it to put on my netflix list.

dammit

hes a good actor, the camera loves him, what more does he need to star in a dozen films in the next few years?

why isnt alan cumming a huge star? i checked out his filmography and there wasnt anything in it to put on my netflix list.

dammit

hes a good actor, the camera loves him, what more does he need to star in a dozen films in the next few years?

Another of those questions.... he's always magnetic, when the character allows he's also sex-on-legs. He's been in blockbusters... he's been in the movies that weren't blockbusters but were critically acclaimed. How is it he's so invisible...?

The ending was brutally, viciously anticlimactic.

Yes, but it was oh so obvious I fear. Overall I enjoyed the re-invention that the story created (they definitely should have billed it as more of a re-visit than a revision of the original), but they royally cheesed the ending. It ended as it should have, but my god I don't think they could have written it any more anticlimacticly.

why isnt alan cumming a huge star? i checked out his filmography and there wasnt anything in it to put on my netflix list.

dammit

hes a good actor, the camera loves him, what more does he need to star in a dozen films in the next few years?
Daniel Craig was loitering around BBC television and film studios for countless years in total obscurity before he landed 007, and now one can hardly swing one's dead cat without hitting another movie of his, both old and new.

We must have faith in Alan Cumming's agent. :)

Another of those questions.... he's always magnetic, when the character allows he's also sex-on-legs. He's been in blockbusters... he's been in the movies that weren't blockbusters but were critically acclaimed. How is it he's so invisible...?
Fanboy! :p

*sings* GnI 'n Alan, sittin' in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G...

Another of those questions.... he's always magnetic, when the character allows he's also sex-on-legs. He's been in blockbusters... he's been in the movies that weren't blockbusters but were critically acclaimed. How is it he's so invisible...?

Maybe because he keeps ending up in roles like Glitch?

Any one else see this travesty? Or did you have the good sense to turn the tube off and read a book? I should have.

I stayed away.

Generally speaking, my interest in something like that is inversely proportional to the amount of hype that leads up to it.

Battlestar Galactica being the exception.

Maybe because he keeps ending up in roles like Glitch?

He was also Nightcrawler in X2.

it sounded to be a poor version of Wicked, and so skipped it. Wicked, incidentally, is quite a good read, and a surprisingly good musical.

Have you also read Son of a Witch (the sequel to Wicked) and Confessions of an Ugly Stepsister? Also pretty imaginative.

I don't know...I thought it was decent. D.G. was DEFINITELY poorly acted, but she wasn't as bad as one might think...she had the occasional time where she showed talent.

And I did like seeing Hawk(the guy who played the reimagined Tin Man, Cain...I call him Hawk because that's the character he played in Star Trek: First Contact and I can never remember his actual name) again. He did a great job with the script.



That would be Neal McDonough, an old college chum of mine.

No she isn't. She's ugly.

Yeah, she's hideous. She should wear a bag over her head. I mean look at her:http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v260/Katganistan/zooey_deschanel_1.jpg
...maybe on that episode of the Twilight Zone... The Eye of the Beholder

Yeah, she's hideous. She should wear a bag over her head. I mean look at her:http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v260/Katganistan/zooey_deschanel_1.jpg
...maybe on that episode of the Twilight Zone... The Eye of the Beholder

Mmm...


......got any of the actress who played Azkadellia?

http://scifipedia.scifi.com/index.php/Kathleen_Robertson

http://scifipedia.scifi.com/index.php/Kathleen_Robertson

:fluffle:

Maybe because he keeps ending up in roles like Glitch?

making the most out of every role is not a mistake on his part.

he was the best thing about a miniseries that scifi has been promoting for months. that cant hurt him.

Fanboy! :p

*sings* GnI 'n Alan, sittin' in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G...

Oh, I wish!

Alan Cumming is higher on the 'I'd go gay for...' list than Johnny Depp...

Maybe because he keeps ending up in roles like Glitch?

Glitch was a good role. The best thing about the series.

He also shone in X-Men 2, and was the highlight of Josie and The Pussycats, was AMAZING in "Plunkett and Macleane" (I'm not sure if Americans can even GET that movie... it is a must-see, if you can), was the bright point in Romy and Michele, the shortlived but best part of Goldeneye... even his somewhat creepy role in Circle of Friends was a masterpiece.

*sigh*

I liked the concept, but I thought the whole thing was just dragged out for far too long. They had three two-hour episodes, and I thought the whole thing could have easily been condensed into two.

I thought the CGI was about par for made-for-TV, and the acting wasn't terrible, considering the script they were working with...

...but the music! What a horribly repetitive score!

I mean look at her:http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v260/Katganistan/zooey_deschanel_1.jpg

I don't care if she can't act...I think she's quite lovely. They could have done worse!

Yeah, she's hideous. She should wear a bag over her head. I mean look at her:http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v260/Katganistan/zooey_deschanel_1.jpg
...maybe on that episode of the Twilight Zone... The Eye of the Beholder

Okay, there she looks cute. She wasn't attractive in Tin Man, though.

I

...but the music! What a horribly repetitive score!


Yeah, tell me about it...it was essentially ONE BLOODY THEME repeated endlessly...:headbang:

making the most out of every role is not a mistake on his part.

he was the best thing about a miniseries that scifi has been promoting for months. that cant hurt him.

True. I was simply suggesting it.

And promoted for months? I must not have been paying attention to commercials...

it sounded to be a poor version of Wicked, and so skipped it. Wicked, incidentally, is quite a good read, and a surprisingly good musical.

*Spoilers*

I was surprised to see that the story for the musical is so much better than the book. The book was a clever idea, but the meandering plot seems a bit pointless. Just a lot of dead ends.

The musical had a lot of synergy between plot and symbolism. A society decaying in fear and egotism suppressing its unconscious represented by the animals loosing their ability to talk. The Witch in Baum's novel was allergic to water which represented her opposition to life.

In the musical she was a life-supporting character, and so her allergy to water was just a bad reputation and a trick of her own.

In McGuire's book, she really is allergic to water, which makes her an anti-life character, but she really isn't. The novel lacks cohesion in its execution. The text and subtext of the musical were far more, pardon the pun, harmonious, making it a far better narrative as well as a spectacle.

The only problem was Dragon Clock. It's purpose and meaning were never clear in the musical, you pretty much had to recognize it from the novel, and since the stories were so different, that didn't make a lot of sense.

Save yourself. It sucked horribly. So much so that the author of the Earthsea series openly denounced it.

:mad: 1. This forum requires that you wait 30 seconds between posts. Please try again in 3 seconds.

LOL

Cheers...no fear....I'll give it a miss then...;)

it sounded to be a poor version of Wicked, and so skipped it. Wicked, incidentally, is quite a good read, and a surprisingly good musical.

Ok. I've now finished wicked, and had to vent. Grave digging seemed preferable to starting a whole new thread on it.

*Spoiler Alert.*

I first said that the musical was better than the book. I'd like to amend that.

The book was bad. Very bad. It was completely incoherent. The whole book was full of all sorts of portends and symbolic promise, and then nothing happened. A magical beast informs her that she has the spirit of a dragon. She comes across a powerful magic book that she alone among all the native children of Oz can use. The all-powerful villain is so scared of her that he needs hostages to keep himself safe from her.

And yet, it all comes to nothing. She accomplishes nothing. The world disintegrates around her. Even in her death nothing is resolved. And she doesn't even die in a final pitched battle to save Oz or some shred of what she is ostensibly fighting for. She dies in a stupid accident. It would be like if Richard III died by choking on a fishbone in the middle of act II. Or if Macbeth died by tripping and falling off his parapet (no, that has symbolic resonance and is a more fitting death than the Witch suffered.) And since I'm already on a Shakespeare trip I'll paraphrase him. Wicked is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

If McGuire's Wicked Witch is such a feckless inconsequential character why did he feel the need to write a four hundred page novel about her? It may as well have been a fictitious traveler's pamphlet. "Welcome to Oz, it sucks, but it won't be getting any better, so you'll get used to it eventually."

And the worst part is, it had such an imaginative premise, but was so badly done. It could have been a truly wonderful story. It could have been... Well, it eventually was, the musical. Which I'd have to say is the only thing that it has going for it. Frankly, the playbill at the musical should come with a disclaimer "warning, musical may make you want to read the book."

Ok. I've now finished wicked, and had to vent. Grave digging seemed preferable to starting a whole new thread on it.

*Spoiler Alert.*

I first said that the musical was better than the book. I'd like to amend that.

The book was bad. Very bad. It was completely incoherent. The whole book was full of all sorts of portends and symbolic promise, and then nothing happened. A magical beast informs her that she has the spirit of a dragon. She comes across a powerful magic book that she alone among all the native children of Oz can use. The all-powerful villain is so scared of her that he needs hostages to keep himself safe from her.

And yet, it all comes to nothing. She accomplishes nothing. The world disintegrates around her. Even in her death nothing is resolved. And she doesn't even die in a final pitched battle to save Oz or some shred of what she is ostensibly fighting for. She dies in a stupid accident. It would be like if Richard III died by choking on a fishbone in the middle of act II. Or if Macbeth died by tripping and falling off his parapet (no, that has symbolic resonance and is a more fitting death than the Witch suffered.) And since I'm already on a Shakespeare trip I'll paraphrase him. Wicked is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

If McGuire's Wicked Witch is such a feckless inconsequential character why did he feel the need to write a four hundred page novel about her? It may as well have been a fictitious traveler's pamphlet. "Welcome to Oz, it sucks, but it won't be getting any better, so you'll get used to it eventually."

And the worst part is, it had such an imaginative premise, but was so badly done. It could have been a truly wonderful story. It could have been... Well, it eventually was, the musical. Which I'd have to say is the only thing that it has going for it. Frankly, the playbill at the musical should come with a disclaimer "warning, musical may make you want to read the book."


geez could you be a bit more specific?

did you like it? i couldnt tell.

geez could you be a bit more specific?

did you like it? i couldnt tell.

Well, I couldn't be more specific, but I could be specific about more. I figured there was no point beating a dead Horse.

Tin Man isnt that bad, as long as you havent ever read or watched any other version of Wizard of Oz, this includes, The Wiz and the Version with Brandy, Bernadette Peters and Witney Houston.

The acting wasnt as bad as the special FX.

I definatly have seen worse movies though. (cinderella II)

I definatly have seen worse movies though. (cinderella II)
And 3. No one ruins classic movies better than Disney.